I think it should be on "science". That's where I would have put it.

I see this as a neuroscience (i.e., Medicine) post, not a political or even current events issue. The evidence presented in the referenced material could have been applicable to anyone, not just a Republican or a President. Whether or not you accept the evidence is, of course, a matter of debate, and interpretation, but in my opinion it is a very compelling explanation of the facts as we have them presented to us.

The evidence of the deterioration of Trump's ability to communicate is indisputable. The only question remains is whether or not it is conscious and deliberate, or if it is the result of some physical condition which could potentially be diagnosed or treated by medical science.

Consider the case of the sniper in the Texas A&M tower shooting.
An autopsy performed on that individual revealed a large tumor in his brain. Whether or not this condition led this otherwise model citizen to commit those crimes may never be known for sure, but its causal role certainly cannot be ruled out.

And from a purely practical point of view, removal of a sitting president from office is certainly possible if responsible scientific opinion is offered that he is unfit to carry out his duties. That is not possible simply because we don't happen to like his politics.

The only question that should certainly be discussed in CE (or Flame) is whether or not a potentially catastrophically deranged Chief Executive should be kept in office by his partisans after they are convinced of the nature of his condition, simply because they feel he is essential to carry out their own partisan agenda. Mr Trump may be merely sick, but those supporters are truly criminal.